D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Flamestrike]

Thank you for clarifying. I'm really surprised to discover that a samurai in Rokugan is "completely justified" in falling short of his moral code. Here are some concrete examples of that code I found on another site:

• Accepting responsibility for a superior’s shameful actions.
• Aiding a wounded enemy.
• Facing a superior foe in the name of your family.
• Giving a truthful report at your own expense.
• Protecting your clan/family/lord’s interests despite great risk to yourself.
• Acknowledging a Superior Opponent.
• Enduring an insult to yourself.
• Showing kindness to one beneath you in station.
• Showing sincere courtesy to enemies or rivals.

Despite the non-Western setting, it all sounds fairly conventional. And I was under the impression that, in L5R, characters gained Honor by acting honorably, in keeping with this code, and lost Honor by acting villainous. So I am indeed surprised to learn that it's instead a setting where a samurai cutting the throat of a vanquished and defenseless bouncer in a bar would be considered, at worst, neutral. But I do appreciate your patience and willingness to inform me.

You win so much with this.

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[eayres33]

This is an interesting thread. When I read through the PHB the first time, I wanted to be a non-magical class. I am a huge Conan fan so I wanted to be a Barbarian, but once our group started to choose its role, a fighter, a cleric and a rogue, I started looking for a magic user. To be honest I instantly fell in love with the Draconic Sorcerer. Granted, I wanted to be a blaster, but the whole character design was all too perfect.
Since then, I’ve also fallen love with the Halfling wild Sorcerer, but haven’t got to play it yet. I think the options given to the Sorcerer so far are flavorful and competitive. Yet I would not have an issue with more options. The question becomes what are you willing to give up for more sorcerer options?
Having the Generic Mage sounds nice, but if it costs me an Inquisitor or an Agent class from Wizards then I will pass the three options I have seem fine, but if the cost is more Cleric options, or Wizards schools, then fine, I feel those classes are over represented to begin with.

 

[Umbran]

Thats because those people (advocates for the death penalty) are not (in DnD terms) good.

They'd be LN at best.

Let us keep the discussion of real-world positions out of this thread, please.

 

[Shasarak]

It's not okay to murder a human in cold blood in D&D and never has been.

But it is OK to do it in a fight and always has been. Even at Alignments height there were never any penalties for fighting and killing someone. You could even strike them down from behind as they turn and run without any murmur of an Alignment penalty.

 

[Maxperson]

But it is OK to do it in a fight and always has been.

Yes, self-defense is a valid reason.

Even at Alignments height there were never any penalties for fighting and killing someone.

Depends on the fight. If someone is punching you and your PC kills them, EVIL ACT!!

You could even strike them down from behind as they turn and run without any murmur of an Alignment penalty.

Eh, no. Not in any game I've played in since I was a teenager. Maturity changes things.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If someone is punching you and your PC kills them, EVIL ACT!!

While that is a reasonable ruling for a DM to make, I've never seen anything in a D&D rulebook state it to be the case.

Eh, no. Not in any game I've played in since I was a teenager. Maturity changes things.

You just called a whole bunch of D&D players immature. Isn't that kind of thing against the rules here?

 

[Maxperson]

While that is a reasonable ruling for a DM to make, I've never seen anything in a D&D rulebook state it to be the case.

No, you haven't. Probably because D&D tends to assume that people know what words mean. If they re-define a word they say so. If they don't, the let the real world usage stand and people know to use it. Good and evil were no re-defined.

You just called a whole bunch of D&D players immature. Isn't that kind of thing against the rules here?

No I didn't. I was specifically talking about me. I did it when I was immature and stopped when I matured.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Probably because D&D tends to assume that people know what words mean.

The difference between believing that it isn't evil to kill someone who was assaulting you in a manner less lethal than using a weapon in self defense, and believing that it is evil to do so is not knowing what words mean.

No I didn't. I was specifically talking about me. I did it when I was immature and stopped when I matured.

Context matters, Max. And in context, you told [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] their statement was incorrect (because that's what "Eh, no." means) and provided "Maturity changes things." as the explanation why they were incorrect.

 

[Maxperson]

The difference between believing that it isn't evil to kill someone who was assaulting you in a manner less lethal than using a weapon in self defense, and believing that it is evil to do so is not knowing what words mean.

Who said it isn't evil to kill someone assaulting you with a fist, just because it was self-defense. I specifically said the opposite. Whoever said that it isn't evil doesn't know what the word means, yes.

Context matters, Max. And in context, you told @Shasarak their statement was incorrect (because that's what "Eh, no." means) and provided "Maturity changes things." as the explanation why they were incorrect.

Yes context does matter. When I begin my statement talking about me, THAT IS THE CONTEXT, not something you would rather it be. You don't get to dictate to me what my context is. The context was "any game that I have played in since I was a teenager".

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Whoever said that it isn't evil doesn't know what the word means, yes.

Because it's impossible to have a different opinion from yours? No, I don't think so, Max. I know what "evil" means, and I know I don't think killing someone in self defense - even if choosing to defend yourself with more lethal means than they attack you with - is evil.

When I begin my statement talking about me...

You began your statement by quoting someone else and with "Eh, no." Not by talking about you.

You don't get to dictate to me what my context is.

I'm not dictating it. I'm observing it.